Reference no: EM13835722

Diagnostic assessment

Multiple-choice test

Question 1: A man and woman had been dating for a few years. One day, the man decided to murder his father, in order to obtain the inheritance that was promised him under the father's will. The man asked the woman to assist him in the murder, and the woman agreed. The woman subsequently purchased a knife for use in the murder. However, the following day, the woman changed her mind. She called the man and told him that she would not participate in the murder. She also returned the recently purchased knife to the store. She did not call the police. The man later murdered his father and was apprehended for the crime. The man's criminal trial concluded with a finding of not guilty. Is the woman guilty of murder as the man's accomplice?

(A) Yes, because she did not thwart the murder.

(B) Yes, because she did not effectively withdraw.

(C) No, because the man was found not guilty.

(D) No, because she effectively withdrew from participation in the crime.

Question 2: A woman had lived in Apartment 123 in the same apartment complex for six years. On many prior occasions, the woman had hired the same handyman to perform odd jobs in her apartment. The woman, who was leaving town on vacation, telephoned the handyman and said, "If you will replace the tile in my bathroom while I'm on vacation, I will pay you $700. You can get the keys from the superintendent." The handyman responded, "It's a deal." During their telephone conversation, the woman failed to tell the handyman she no longer lived in Apartment 123, but had moved down the hall into Apartment 132. The handyman came to the apartment complex, got the key for Apartment 123 from the superintendent, and re-tiled the bathroom. When the woman returned from her vacation, she noticed that her bathroom tile had not been replaced. She contacted the handyman, who then informed her that he had replaced the tile in Apartment 123. The handyman demanded that the woman pay him $700, but the woman refused. If the handyman sues the woman for payment of the $700 and the woman claims mistake, judgment should be for whom?

(A) The handyman, because the woman should have realized that he would replace the tile in Apartment 123.

(B) The handyman, because even though no contract existed, he is entitled to quasicontractual relief under the circumstances.

(C) The woman, because the handyman did not replace the tile in the woman's bathroom.

(D) The woman, because no contract existed due to the mutual mistake of the parties.

Question 3: A woman and her best friend went out to lunch at a local restaurant. During their lunch, the friend received several calls on her cell phone, and the woman grew increasingly frustrated at the constant interruptions. When the friend stepped out to use the ladies' room, leaving her cell phone on the table, the woman took the phone, turned it off and put it in her purse, planning to return it at the end of lunch. However, the woman forgot to return the phone to her friend and ended up taking it home with her. If the woman is charged with larceny, should she be convicted?

(A) No, provided the woman eventually gave the phone back to her friend.

(B) No, because the woman did not intend to permanently deprive her friend of the phone.

(C) Yes, because the woman knowingly deprived the friend of her phone.

(D) Yes, because the woman purposely took and kept the friend's phone.

Question 4: At the start of the basketball season, the team's coach decided not to start a player who was a long-time fan favorite. As the team started to lose on a consistent basis, one season ticket holder became disgusted with the coach and began wearing a t-shirt suggesting that people stop attending the team's games. During the games, the fan would walk in front of the TV camera with his t-shirt slogan prominently displayed. As the season progressed, many other fans joined in heckling the coach and wearing similar t-shirts. Soon thereafter, the fan received a notice from the team's management revoking his season tickets. The fan was informed that he would not be allowed to attend any more games, but would receive full reimbursement for all remaining games. If the fan brings an appropriate action against the team challenging the revocation of his season tickets, will he prevail?

(A) Yes, because he was entitled to express his rights of free speech.

(B) Yes, because he had paid for the tickets for the whole season.

(C) No, because his license to attend games was revocable.

(D) No, because obscene speech is not constitutionally protected.

Question 5: An author sued a production company and a screenwriter for violating his copyrights by producing an unauthorized TV adaptation of his book. He filed suit in federal court, suing both defendants in the Southern District of New York. The author met with the production company, and worked out a deal where the author's name would be on the show's credits and he would receive a significant fee as an advisor. Based on the settlement, the author decided to dismiss his claim against both parties. Before the author did so, the screenwriter, filed an answer, claiming he co-owned the copyright based on a 20-year-old contract with the author. In his answer, he stated several times how much he was looking forward to seeing the author in court and making the author spend a lot of money in attorneys' fees. How can the author correctly dismiss his claim?

(A) By filing a notice of dismissal.

(B) By filing a stipulation.

(C) By making a motion for voluntary dismissal.

(D) By moving for summary judgment.

Question 6: A man was injured when he attempted to rescue his friend from a lake, which he had fallen into during a fight with a fisherman. The man sued the fisherman in the appropriate U.S. District Court, but not his friend. The fisherman claims that the friend's conduct was the exclusive cause of the incident that resulted in injury to the man and seeks to join the friend in the action. Under applicable state law, if the friend is not named as a defendant and the friend and fisherman were joint and several tortfeasors, the fisherman would have no right of contribution from the friend if a judgment were obtained against the fisherman. The man is a citizen of Idaho, the fisherman is a citizen of Maine, and the friend is a citizen of Idaho. How should the Court rule on the fisherman's motion to join the friend in the action?

(A) The Court should grant the motion, because the fisherman's contention that the friend was responsible for the incident may (at trial)
prove to be correct.

(B) The Court should grant the motion, because there is a common nucleus of operative facts.

(C) The Court should deny the motion, because the friend is not an indispensable party.

(D) The Court should deny the motion, because joinder of the friend would destroy subject matter jurisdiction.

Question 7: A high school sophomore had recently obtained her driver's license. One evening, she was driving home from the library when a heavy rain began to fall. The rainstorm completely washed out the roadway, and the girl's car got stuck in an embankment in a remote area. She exited the car and began walking, hoping to be rescued by another motorist. Miraculously, the girl came upon a hotel. She entered the lobby and told the owner about her predicament. Realizing that the girl had no place else to stay, the owner told her that he had a room available and that the room charge would be $300 per night. The owner said this knowing that the standard room charge at the motel was $200 per night. Due to the inclement weather, the girl was forced to stay for two nights. How much are the girl's parents liable to pay the hotel owner for their daughter's two-night stay?

(A) Nothing, because parents are not liable for necessaries furnished to a minor.

(B) Nothing, because contracts of minors are voidable.

(C) $400, which is the reasonable rate of furnishing necessaries to their daughter.

(D) $600, which is the contract rate of furnishing necessaries to their daughter.

Question 8: A man purchased a new bike. One day, he rode the new bike to a local movie theater for the eight o'clock show and parked his bike out front. As it was a small town, he felt comfortable leaving his bike on the rack without locking it. While the man was in the movie theater, the ticket agent decided to take the bike out for a spin. The ticket agent rode the bike once around the block and placed it back in the rack just as the man had left it. As the ticket agent was placing the bike back in the rack, the handlebars gently rubbed against the rail. After the movie, the man retrieved the bike and had no idea that it had been moved, until he noticed a small scratch on the handlebars. If the man files suit against the ticket agent, will he prevail?

(A) No, because the man was unaware of the ticket agent's use.

(B) No, because there was insufficient damage to the man's bike.

(C) Yes, for trespass to a chattel.

(D) Yes, for conversion.

Question 9: A bar manager told one of his bartenders that there was a new type of home blender on the market that could handle the ingredients of any drink, as well as the ingredients to make salsa and other chopped foods. The bar manager intended to wait in line to buy the blender at a special sale, and the bartender asked the manager to pick an additional blender up for the bartender as well. The bar manager purchased three blenders and kept one for himself. He sold one to the bartender for the sale purchase price and gave the second to his sister as a gift. Two weeks later, the bar manager came across information on the Internet that the blender manufacturer
was recalling the blenders because the motors could overheat and could throw sparks, causing a fire. The bar manager called his sister right away and left a message, but she didn't get it in time. Her blender sparked, causing a fire in her kitchen that burned her right hand and caused major property damage. The bartender was also burned by his blender, although he didn't suffer nearly as much property damage. The bar manager apologized to the bartender for not having told him about the recall. If the sister and the bartender file a strict products liability action against the bar manager for damages, what is the likely outcome?

(A) The bartender and the sister will prevail against the bar manager, because the bar manager is strictly liable.

(B) The bartender, but not the sister, will prevail against the bar manager, because the bar manager failed to warn the bartender about the recall.

(C) Neither the bartender nor the sister will prevail against the bar manager, because the bar manager is not a commercial seller.

(D) Neither the bartender nor the sister will prevail against the bar manager, because the bar manager did not tamper with the blender.

Question 10: An engineer sued her employer in federal district court alleging violations of False Claims Act, a federal statute. The engineer filed her complaint and the employer timely filed an answer. No other pleadings were entered in the case. Discovery commenced. One month after the employer's answer was filed, the engineer filed a written demand for a trial by jury. Which of the following statements is correct?

(A) Because more than 14 days passed between the filing of the last pleading and demand for trial by jury, the case will not be tried by a jury.

(B) Upon proper motion, the court has the discretion to grant relief and order a trial by jury.

(C) The Seventh Amendment requires that the case be tried by a jury, regardless of the point at which the demand is filed.

(D) The Sixth and Seventh Amendments require that the case be tried by a jury, regardless of the point at which the demand is filed.

Question 11: A married couple was waiting on line for tickets to a movie. A man waiting ahead of them was quite overweight. The husband made several comments to his wife about how fat the man was, and the man overheard. He confronted the husband and demanded an apology. The husband refused. The man again demanded an apology and threatened to punch the wife if he did not get one. To show he was serious, the man pushed the wife and waved a closed fist in her face. Fearing that his wife would suffer a heart attack from shock, the husband reached down, grabbed a nearby pipe lying on the ground, and beat the man in the head with it repeatedly. The man died from head injuries. If the husband is prosecuted for criminal homicide, should the court instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter in addition to murder?

(A) No, because the husband clearly intended to kill or at least seriously injure the man.

(B) No, because the husband was the initial wrongdoer, having provoked the man with his rude comments.

(C) Yes, because the jury could reasonably conclude that the husband lacked the intent to kill or injure and was merely engaged in
reckless conduct.

(D) Yes, because the jury could find that the husband unreasonably, but honestly, believed that deadly force was needed to defend his wife.

Question 12: A woman loved to watch her neighborhood football games. According to the neighborhood tradition, whenever a player scored a touchdown, the player would immediately rush full-speed at one of the fans on the sidelines and jokingly tackle him or her. One Saturday, as the woman and her neighbors are enjoying a game, a player scores a touchdown. He immediately looks for his little brother on the sidelines, intending to tackle him. The woman, standing directly behind the player's brother, sees the player looking in their direction. Exhilarated by the play, she jokingly calls out, "Come on, big boy!" The player charges at her. Realizing that she has become the player's target, the woman ducks, but the player succeeds in tackling her. The woman falls to the ground and sustains a concussion. If the woman now brings suit against the player for her injuries, will she recover?

(A) No, because injuries sustained during sporting events are foreseeable.

(B) No, because the woman consented to the player's contact.

(C) Yes, because the woman did not expressly consent to the contact.

(D) Yes, because the woman suffered a harmful and offensive contact.

Question 13: A tenant rented an apartment and entered into a written lease agreement for a term of six years with a monthly rental fee of $1,500. The tenant resided in the apartment for three years. Then, the tenant drafted a written agreement in which he transferred his entire interest for two years to a friend. According to the written instrument, the friend was obligated to directly pay the tenant $2,000 per month for the term of his occupancy. For the next six months, the friend paid the tenant $2,000 each month, of which the tenant paid the landlord $1,500. During the seventh and eighth months, the friend continued to make his $2,000 payments to the tenant. However, the tenant did not make any rental payments to the landlord for those two months. After not receiving his rental payments, the landlord went to the apartment and found the friend in possession. The landlord then sued the friend for the two months' rent that had not been paid. For whom should the court enter a judgment?

(A) The friend, because he made his monthly rental payments to the tenant.

(B) The friend, because as a subtenant he is not obligated to the landlord.

(C) The landlord, because the tenant transferred his entire interest.

(D) The landlord, because there is privity of contract between the landlord and the friend.

Question 14: An elderly man's house was frequently the target of vandalism by local teenagers. Tired of having to repair the damage they did to his home, the man decided to lie in wait for teenagers on the night before Halloween, when they often vandalized his home. True to form, teenagers in costume appeared and began spray-painting the man's house. Wanting to scare the teenagers, the man fired a shotgun over their heads. Some of the shotgun pellets went through the top of a tall hat one of the teenagers, who was dressed as Abraham Lincoln, but the pellets did not harm him. The man was subsequently arrested. What, if any, crime did the man commit?

(A) Mayhem.

(B) Battery.

(C) Attempted murder, because a shotgun is an inherently dangerous weapon.

(D) No crime.

Question 15: On Monday, three men agreed to rob a convenience store that Friday morning. The next day, one of the men, without notifying the other two, stole a truck to be used as the getaway vehicle in the robbery. The day after that, the man was arrested by the police for parole violations and was placed in jail without bail. Nevertheless, the other two men proceeded with their plan to rob the
store. One of the other men, however, was a police informant who notified the police of the impending robbery. The police waited at the store and arrested the remaining man as he entered the store. Conspiracy in this jurisdiction requires proof of an overt act in addition to an agreement. Of which of the following crimes may the man who stole the truck properly be convicted?

(A) Theft of the truck only.

(B) Theft and either conspiracy to commit robbery or attempted robbery, but not both.

(C) Theft and attempted robbery only.

(D) Theft, conspiracy to commit robbery, and attempted robbery.

Question 16: An uncle wanted his nephew to quit smoking because smoking is unhealthy. The uncle attempted to convince the nephew to quit, but the nephew would not agree. The uncle then offered to pay the nephew $5,000 if the nephew quit smoking for one year. It was the uncle's hope that if he could get the nephew to stop smoking for one year, he would not pick up the unhealthy habit again. The nephew agreed and signed a contract to that effect with the uncle. The nephew quit smoking for one year, but afterwards began smoking again. He then asked for the $5,000, but the uncle refused to pay. The nephew subsequently sues the uncle. What is the likely outcome of the case?

(A) The uncle is liable, because there was a bargained-for exchange.

(B) The uncle is liable, because the nephew relied to his detriment on the uncle's promise.

(C) The uncle is not liable, because the consideration was inadequate.

(D) The uncle is not liable, because the uncle did not receive a benefit and the nephew did not suffer a detriment.

Question 17: A chef had equipped his home kitchen with the latest cutting-edge appliances, including a brand-new cappuccino machine. One night, when the chef was at work and the nanny was at the chef's home with the chef's two small children, the nanny decided to use the cappuccino machine. The nanny knew that the chef preferred that she not tamper with his equipment other than to use the microwave oven to reheat the dinners he prepared every day for his children. However, it was a chilly night and the nanny was relatively certain that she knew how to operate the machine. The nanny was unaware, however, that the machine had been recalled by the manufacturer for a design defect that caused overheating of one of the handles and a risk of severe burn. The chef knew of the recall but had not thought to warn the nanny. In using the cappuccino machine, the nanny burned her hand on the overheated handle and had to seek medical treatment. If the nanny files a strict products liability action against the manufacturer of the cappuccino machine, is she likely to prevail?

(A) Yes, if the nanny demonstrates that the defect was the result of unreasonable design by the manufacturer.

(B) Yes, because the cappuccino machine was defective when it left the manufacturer.

(C) No, because the nanny was not supposed to use the chef's equipment.

(D) No, because the nanny was not the purchaser of the cappuccino machine.

Question 18: An Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Toledo sells appliances through independent dealers. Each dealer has a separate agreement, which they respectively executed with the corporation at the time they were appointed to be dealers. Their agreements entitle them to sell all appliances manufactured by the corporation in their areas. This year, the corporation has produced a new blender that represents a great advance in blender technology. The corporation decides that it will not sell this blender to its existing dealers but, instead, will enter into agreements with new dealers to handle the blender line. Twelve dealers in Indiana jointly file actions for breach of contract, and an injunction against the corporation in the appropriate U.S. District Court. The corporation moves to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and alternatively moves to sever the actions. How should the court rule on the corporation's motions?

(A) The court should grant the corporation's motion to sever, because the claims arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, and there are common issues of law and fact to all of the claims.

(B) The court should grant the corporation's motion to dismiss, because the plaintiffs are not diverse.

(C) The court should deny the corporation's motion to sever, because plaintiffs are compelled to join their actions if their claims arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions.

(D) The court should deny the corporation's motion to dismiss, because the diversity requirement has been met in this case.

Question 19: An artist and a firefighter were neighbors who had been feuding for some time. One afternoon, the artist found some trash in her yard next to the fence that separated her and the firefighter's properties. Convinced that the firefighter had deposited the trash on her property, the artist picked up the trash and threw it onto the firefighter's property. The firefighter saw the artist throw the trash onto her property and immediately ran up to the artist with a sledgehammer in his hand, got within inches of the artist's face, and shouted, "If you ever do something like that again I'll break your leg!" The firefighter then stormed off, leaving the artist shaken by the encounter. The artist brought an action against the firefighter for infliction of emotional distress. What is the likely outcome of the case?

(A) Judgment for the firefighter, because he did not threaten any immediate physical harm.

(B) Judgment for the firefighter, as long as the artist experienced no physical harm as a result of the firefighter's actions.

(C) Judgment for the artist, if the firefighter intended that the artist experience apprehension of a harmful physical contact.

(D) Judgment for the artist, if she suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the firefighter's actions.

Question 20: A handyman owned a two-story hardware store on the main street of town. The hardware store was located on a corner lot, next to a retail building owned by a lawyer. At the rear of the hardware store was a narrow alley, wide enough to accommodate a car or small truck. The handyman gave the lawyer oral permission to use the alley behind the handyman's store to access the narrow space behind the lawyer's building, where the lawyer parks his truck every weekday. The lawyer subsequently sold his building to a dentist, who insisted on having an off-street parking space. At the time of the conveyance, the lawyer negotiated with the handyman and obtained an express easement in favor of the retail building for a right-of-way through the alley. The dentist took over the retail building and parked behind the building on weekdays and Saturdays. One day, however, the dentist's vehicle was vandalized, and he began parking in a secured lot. Five years later, the dentist sold the building to a pharmacy conglomerate that simultaneously also purchased the hardware store from the handyman, intending to renovate the two buildings into one large retail space. Almost immediately thereafter, the pharmacy conglomerate found a more attractive location at which to carry out its plans, and it sold the
hardware store and retail building to two buyers. The new owner of the hardware store placed a dumpster in the alleyway, thereby blocking access to the space behind the retail building. The new owner of the retail building now seeks to park his car in this space.
If the new owner of the retail building seeks a court order requiring the new owner of the hardware store to remove the dumpster, what is the likely outcome of the case?

(A) The new owner of the retail building will prevail, because an easement by prescription exists.

(B) The new owner of the retail building will prevail, because the easement has not been abandoned.

(C) The new owner of the hardware store will prevail, because the easement merged with the fee when the pharmacy conglomerate purchased both properties.

(D) The new owner of the hardware store will prevail, because the new owner of the retail building is estopped from asserting rights under the easement.

Question 21: While hunting on public grounds, an outdoorsman crossed over onto an adjoining private property. The outdoorsman came upon a log cabin, which had obviously been abandoned some time ago and was in great disrepair. On inspection, the outdoorsman found the cabin to be generally well built, except that the lock on the front door was broken, the windows needed to be replaced, and shrubs and bushes had nearly overgrown the front porch. The outdoorsman cleared out the overgrown bushes from the cabin, replaced the lock on the front door, and installed new windows. For the next year, the outdoorsman stayed in the cabin nearly every weekend. After the first year, the outdoorsman moved into the cabin. For the next 10 years, he lived in the cabin nine months out of the year, leaving only during the harsh winter months, as the cabin had no heating system apart from a small fireplace, and snow and ice in the area made it unsuitable for hunting or camping. During the winter, the outdoorsman locked up the cabin and left
it unattended. No one other than the outdoorsman ever occupied the cabin during that time period. The outdoorsman had no word from the owner until  almost 15 years after his initial occupation, when one Saturday morning, a man claiming to be the owner showed up, pounding on the door and demanding that the outdoorsman vacate the premises immediately. The applicable statutory period for acquiring title by adverse possession is seven years. if the outdoorsman files an action to quiet title to the cabin, will he prevail?

(A) Yes, because the outdoorsman was the only person to occupy the cabin for a period of more than ten years, and he held himself out to be the owner.

(B) Yes, because the outdoorsman made substantial improvements to the cabin.

(C) No, because the outdoorsman did not possess the cabin continuously for the statutory time period.

(D) No, because the outdoorsman took possession of the cabin in bad faith, knowing that it belonged to someone else, but intending to
claim it nonetheless.

Question 22: A buyer contracted in writing to purchase 200 Model-Y widgets from a seller for $100 each. The contract provided that the seller would deliver the widgets to the buyer on or before June 1. The buyer and the seller are both merchants. After entering into the agreement, the seller discovered that the Model-Y widgets were sold out. However, the seller did have a large quantity of Model-Z widgets in storage. The Model-Z widget was newer and more durable than the older Model-Y widget. Both parties were aware that the retail price for Model-Z widgets was $120 per unit. The seller delivered 200 Model-Z widgets to the buyer and noted that they were sent as an accommodation. These units were received by the buyer on June 1. If the buyer accepts the shipment of Model-Z widgets, what will he be obligated to pay the seller?

(A) The contract price for the Model-Y widgets.
(B) The retail price for the Model-Z widgets.
(C) The fair market value for the Model-Z widgets.
(D) The reasonable price for the Model-Z widgets.

Question 23: An apparel company ran a wholesale business selling graphic T-shirts for skateboarders. Most of its products were inexpensive T-shirts that resembled pricey T-shirts sold in many specialty skateboard shops, although they also sold licensed, branded T-shirts from the popular skateboarding companies. In most cases, the only way to tell the difference between the inexpensive T-shirts and the original designs that inspired them was to launder them to see whether they maintained their size and bright colors. A new skateboarding shop, wishing to order the authentic skateboarding branded T-shirts for its discriminating teen-aged customers, placed an order for 100 assorted graphically designed T-shirts in all colors and sizes. The apparel company mistakenly shipped 100 of the
inexpensive T-shirts, which looked the same, but were not the licensed, branded T-shirts expected by the skateboarding shop owner. When the skateboarding shop discovered the mistake on the day of delivery, it demanded that the licensed, branded T-shirts it had ordered be sent instead. The apparel company refused, because it had just received an order from a high-end skateboarding shop in a
resort town that would pay a premium price for all of the authentic licensed, branded skateboarding T-shirts that the apparel company had in stock. In a breach of contract action by the skateboarding shop against the apparel company, who will prevail?

(A) The apparel company, because there was no meeting of the minds to form the contract.

(B) The apparel company, because its shipment was a mere counteroffer, which the skateboarding shop rejected upon delivery.

(C) The skateboarding shop, because it is the master of the offer, not the seller.

(D) The skateboarding shop, because the shipment of the wrong T-shirts was both an acceptance and a breach by the seller.

Question 24: A buyer contracted with a seller to purchase Bill's SuperSports Bar, a popular establishment in a highvisibility commercial area. The seller sent the buyer a document via overnight express mail, which stated: "I, Seller, agree to sell Bill's SuperSports Bar to Buyer for $850,000. Check for 10% down received, in escrow. Signed, Seller. Date: Nov. 15, 1999." The document was also signed by the buyer directly below the seller's signature. The buyer responded by letter in which he outlined the time and place of the closing: Jan. 3, 2000, at 10 a.m. at the Shield Law Offices located in an office complex down the street from the SuperSports Bar. On the appointed day, both parties duly appeared to pass title to the property. The seller produced a deed conveying Bill's SuperSports Bar to the seller from another owner dated Dec. 28, 1999; the buyer learned that the other owner, in fact, owned Bill's SuperSports Bar on Nov. 15, 1999. The buyer refused to perform the contract, arguing that the seller cannot give good title to the property. In a suit by the seller for specific performance, what is the likely outcome?

(A) The buyer will prevail, because he did not contract with the other owner to buy the SuperSports Bar.

(B) The buyer will prevail, because the seller did not hold marketable title on Nov. 15, 1999.

(C) The seller will prevail, because he fulfilled the terms of the agreement by delivering marketable title on January 3.

(D) The seller will prevail, because the buyer knew that another owner owned the SuperSports Bar at the time the parties entered the contract.

Question 25: After he was turned down for a promotion, a man decided to murder his boss. The man purchased a gun for this purpose and then invited his boss to his house for dinner. However, the day before the boss arrived at the man's house, the man changed his mind and left the gun under his mattress. The man was subsequently charged with attempted murder. Should the man be convicted or acquitted?

(A) The man should be acquitted, because the boss was unaware of the man's motives.

(B) The man should be acquitted, because his actions were not sufficient to constitute an attempt.

(C) The man should be convicted, because a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts.

(D) The man should be convicted, because he purchased the gun with the intent to kill his boss.

Question 26: A landowner conveyed a large estate "to my daughter, her heirs and assigns, on condition that she produce an heir with her husband, but if she dies without such an heir, then to my personal assistant." Five years after the landowner conveyed the estate to her daughter, the personal assistant and the landowner got into a serious dispute, which resulted in the personal assistant's decision to set up her own rival business. At the same time, the landowner's daughter and her husband divorced. Three years later, the husband died of a stroke brought on by undiagnosed high blood pressure. The daughter remarried to a new business protege of
her father. The estate was a heavily forested property with a number of stands of maple trees. The daughter and her new husband walked the property and marked stands to be harvested for wood. The daughter then exploited the timber on the estate for a large profit. Was the daughter's act of exploiting the timber for profit permissible?

(A) No, as affirmative waste, because the daughter was only a life tenant of the estate.

(B) No, as trespass, because the personal assistant owns the estate in fee simple absolute.

(C) No, because the daughter has not produced an heir with her first husband.

(D) Yes, because the daughter holds in fee simple.

Question 27: A safety inspector was injured when the conveyor belt he was inspecting malfunctioned. The belt was located in a factory owned by a Utah corporation with its principle place of business and headquarters located in Washington. The inspector brought a cause of action against the corporation in Federal District Court in Washington. Service of process was sent to the residence of the corporation's president. Service was accepted by the president's 18 year old son. The corporation filed two motions. The first motion, made one week after process was served, was made under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The second motion, filed a day later, was brought under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. The court ruled that the corporation had waived its right to complain about service of process. Was the court's action proper?

(A) No, because service of process must be made to the agent for service of process.
(B) No, because the motion was made within 20 days of service of process.
(C) Yes, because the son was 18 years old and had the capacity to accept service of process.
(D) Yes, because the corporation waived its right to object to service of process.

Question 28: Five years ago, an architect, a citizen of State X, designed a building for a State Y corporation which had its principal place of business in State Y. Six months ago, the building's mezzanine collapsed in causing damages in excess of $100,000. The corporation has filed an action against the architect in the U.S. District Court in State X alleging that damages resulted from the negligent design of the building. The architect filed an answer denying negligence and asserting as an affirmative defense that the statute of limitations for negligence is two years. The architect filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by an affidavit stating that the building had been constructed six years ago. Although the statute of limitations on negligence claims in State X is two years, the architect's motion was denied. Was the architect's motion for summary judgment properly denied?

(A) Yes, because the accident occurred within the past 2 years.

(B) Yes, because the architect has the burden of proof with respect to its statute of limitations defense.

(C) No, because the corporation failed to file a responsive affidavit.

(D) No, because the building was constructed six years ago.

Question 29: The annual month-long wine festival was in full force in the small coastal community in which a 14-yearold teenager lived. During the days, celebrants winetasted, shopped, and ate various delicacies at the small wineries that lined the community's ten-block Main Street. Evenings brought more drinking, along with dancing and eating until midnight each night. To keep Main Street clear for maintenance vehicles to prepare the festival area for the next day's activities, the coastal community had enacted a ban on motorized vehicles between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. One morning during the festival at 7:30 a.m., two women had just finished breakfast at a cafe on Main Street when they walked out onto the street to enjoy the morning sun. Just at that moment, the teenager rounded the corner onto Main Street riding a motorized bicycle. The teenager was running late completing his morning paper route. The motorized bicycle the teenager was riding had a top speed of only 15 miles per hour, and the teenager would have been able to stop in time except that the bicycle was out of brake fluid. The teenager had owned the bicycle for two years but had never examined the brakes. The brakes failed and the teenager hit one of the women, knocking her unconscious. If the woman files suit against the teenager, what is the probable outcome?

(A) The woman will prevail, because the teenager was negligent per se.

(B) The woman will prevail, if a reasonably prudent child of the same age and experience would have known the necessity to service the brakes of the motorized bicycle.

(C) The teenager will prevail, because the woman's injury was not the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent.

(D) The teenager will prevail, because a manufacturing defect was the cause of the woman's injury.

Question 30: An eighty-year-old farmer had a successful cattle farm. The farmer had little family and wanted to ensure that the farm would continue to be operated by someone who appreciated the farm's history and enjoyed working with cattle. The farmer had only one son who was 45 years old and had no children yet. One of the farmer's employees had started working on the farm during high school. The employee had shown a great interest in cattle and was a loyal and hardworking employee. That employee was in his early twenties. To ensure that the farm would continue operating after his death, the farmer included a clause in his will that provided that
upon the farmer's death, the farm would go to his son for life, and then upon the son's death, the farm would pass to the son's children. The will further provided that if the son had no children at the time of his death, then the farm would pass to the valued employee. The farmer died two years later, at which time his son still had no children. The employee was still working on the farm. Does the employee have a remainder interest in the farm?

(A) No, the employee has a fee simple interest subject to a condition subsequent.
(B) No, the employee has an executory interest.
(C) Yes, the employee has a contingent remainder interest.
(D) Yes, the employee has a vested remainder interest subject to open.

Attachment:- Diagnostic_02L05+(1).compressed.pdf